From: Ethan Solomita <solo@google.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: Inconsistent use of node IDs
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:54:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45F5E84B.9010901@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200703130019.30953.ak@suse.de>
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
>> This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously "nid" or
>> "node") in the presence of fake NUMA.
>
> I think it's very consistent -- your patch would make it inconsistent though.
It's consistent to call node_online() with a physical node ID when the
online node mask is composed of fake nodes?
> Sorry, but when you ask for NUMA emulation you will get it. I don't see
> any point in a "half way only for some subsystems I like" NUMA emulation.
> It's unlikely that your ideas of where it is useful and where is not
> matches other NUMA emulation user's ideas too.
I don't understand your comments. My code is intended to work for all
systems. If the system is non-NUMA by nature, then all CPUs map to fake
node 0.
As an example, on a two chip dual-core AMD opteron system, there are 4
"cpus" where CPUs 0 and 1 are close to the first half of memory, and
CPUs 2 and 3 are close to the second half. Without this change CPUs 2
and 3 are mapped to fake node 1. This results in awful performance. With
this change, CPUs 2 and 3 are mapped to (roughly) 1/2 the fake node
count. Their zonelists[] are ordered to do allocations preferentially
from zones that are local to CPUs 2 and 3.
Can you tell me the scenario where my code makes things worse?
> Besides adding such a secondary node space would be likely a huge long term
> mainteance issue. I just can it see breaking with every non trivial change.
I'm adding no data structures to do this. The current code already has
get_phys_node. My changes use the existing information about node
layout, both the physical and fake, and defines a mapping. The current
mapping just takes a physical node and says "it's the fake node too".
> NACK.
I wish you would include some specifics as to why you think what you
do. You're suggesting we leave in place a system that destroys NUMA
locality when using fake numa, and passes around physical node ids as an
index into nodes[] whihc is indexed by fake nodes. My change has no
effect without fake numa, and harms no one with fake numa.
-- Ethan
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-12 23:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-12 22:51 Ethan Solomita
2007-03-12 23:19 ` Andi Kleen
2007-03-12 23:54 ` Ethan Solomita [this message]
2007-03-16 20:26 ` Ethan Solomita
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=45F5E84B.9010901@google.com \
--to=solo@google.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox